4.6 Article

Chronic marijuana usage by human pancreas donors is associated with impaired islet function

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258434

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wanek Family Project
  2. NIDDK [RRID:SCR_014387]
  3. NIH [R01HL108735, 2UC4DK098085]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic marijuana use has been found to affect the endocrine phenotype and function of human pancreatic islets, as well as the reversal rate of diabetes in transplantation studies. Islets from marijuana-users displayed reduced insulin secretion and enhanced CB1R expression in beta cells.
We investigated the effect of chronic marijuana use, defined as 4 times weekly for more than 3 years, on human pancreatic islets. Pancreata from deceased donors who chronically used marijuana were compared to those from age, sex and ethnicity matched non-users. The islets from marijuana-users displayed reduced insulin secretion as compared to islets from non-users upon stimulation with high glucose (AUC, 3.41 +/- 0.62 versus 5.14 +/- 0.47, p<0.05) and high glucose plus KCI (AUC, 4.48 +/- 0.41 versus 7.69 +/- 0.58, p<0.001). When human islets from chronic marijuana-users were transplanted into diabetic mice, the mean reversal rate of diabetes was 35% versus 77% in animals receiving islets from non-users (p<0.01). Immunofluorescent staining for cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1R) was shown to be colocalized with insulin and enhanced significantly in beta cells from marijuana-users vs. non-users (CB1R intensity/islet area, 14.95 +/- 2.71 vs. 3.23 +/- 0.87, p<0.001). In contrast, CB1R expression was not co-localized with glucagon or somatostatin. Furthermore, isolated islets from chronic marijuana-users appeared hypertrophic. In conclusion, excessive marijuana use affects islet endocrine phenotype and function in vitro and in vivo. Given the increasing use of marijuana, our results underline the importance of including lifestyle when evaluating human islets for transplantation or research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据